Short Reads

Buckle up: the ACM is racing ahead with speedy solutions and more fines

Buckle up: the ACM is racing ahead with speedy solutions and more fin

Buckle up: the ACM is racing ahead with speedy solutions and more fines

07.03.2019 NL law

The Dutch competition watchdog ACM will bite faster and fiercer, according to its new chairman Martijn Snoep. The ACM plans to shorten the length of its investigations by deciding on their merits sooner. This will free up time and capacity to deal with more cases.

In addition, it intends to impose more fines. Swifter and stricter outcomes can thus be expected, particularly in regard of the ACM's newly designated focus areas. At horizontal level, the ACM will concentrate on purchasing cartels and the coordination of employment conditions, while at vertical level resale price maintenance and online sales restrictions are on the ACM's priority list. Companies are therefore well-advised to double-check whether their agreements with distributors and their contacts with competitors are in line with the ACM's recently published vertical and horizontal guidelines.

The ACM chairman recently confirmed to newspaper NRC and news radio station BNR that the average length of ACM investigations will be shortened and that the number of fines it issues will increase. This marks the end of the ACM's earlier, more 'informal', enforcement style.

It is also marks the end of the ACM's more liberal approach to vertical restraints. The ACM joined the European Commission's battle against (online) vertical restraints in late December 2018 by starting an investigation into vertical price-fixing of consumer goods by manufacturers and online and offline shops. Its recently-published guidelines on vertical agreements, together with its expressly mentioned focus on "illegal (price) agreements between suppliers and distributors and on online sales restrictions", show that it has no intention of easing up the battle yet. The ACM's vertical guidelines provide practical examples of online practices companies currently face, such as online sales restrictions, dual pricing and online advertisement restrictions. They are therefore a welcome addition to the European Commission's guidelines on vertical restraints, which are currently under review. Similarly, the ACM's guidelines on horizontal agreements provide useful guidance for companies when dealing with competitors. The horizontal guidelines' paragraphs on purchasing cartels and coordination of employment conditions are particularly worth reading, now that the ACM has designated these as focus area. The ACM is likely to start looking for non-poaching clauses, wage-fixing and collusion of hiring conditions soon.

Companies should therefore double-check their distribution arrangements and online sales practices for potential antitrust risks. They should also keep their HR staff aware of the potential antitrust risks of certain recruiting and hiring practices.

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of March 2019. Another article in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring